Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Don Hanson and Donna W. Schuster, Appellants, v. United States of America et al., Appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. - 540 F.2d 947
Submitted July 19, 1976.Decided Aug. 26, 1976
James Malcolm Williams, Minneapolis, Minn., on brief, for appellants.
Robert G. Renner, U. S. Atty., and Daniel M. Scott, Asst. U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., on brief, for appellees.
Before BRIGHT, STEPHENSON and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from the district court's1 denial of appellants' request for a preliminary injunction. Appellants are commercial distributors of Laetrile (Vitamin B-17), which they claim to be effective in the prevention, control, arrest and minimization of cancerous tissue growths. They sought injunctive and declaratory relief in the district court preventing United States authorities from interfering in any way with the distribution of Laetrile.2 Specifically, appellants requested the enjoining of criminal prosecutions, search warrants and civil seizures, and an end to official statements against them.
It is undisputed that Laetrile has not been approved for distribution by the Food and Drug Administration. See 21 U.S.C. § 355(a). In denying preliminary injunctive relief, the district court essentially held that appellants had not demonstrated a substantial probability of success with respect to their claim that Laetrile is not a substance subject to control within the meaning of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 321(g)(1) and 321(p)(1).
After reviewing the record we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. We affirm on the basis of the district court's well-reasoned opinion reported at 417 F.Supp. 30 (D.Minn.1976).
Affirmed.